Truth Magazine

By Carol R. Lumpkin

The baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit is misunderstood by many people in the religious world. It will be my purpose to present a short study of this important subject as presented in God’s word. The prophet Joel said, “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions” (Joel 2:28).

Jesus said, “For John (that is, John the Baptist) truly baptized with water; but ye (apostles) shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence” (Acts 1:5). “But ye (apostles) shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judean, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (Jn. 14:26). The apostles were instructed to tarry in Jerusalem until they received this power of the Holy Spirit (Lk. 24:49).

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were ail with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:1-4). The apostles were the only ones who received the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit on the Pentecost day. This power came upon them to enable them to speak in tongues, thus to proclaim the gospel of Christ. The power was not for the purpose to save anyone. Peter declared that the Holy Spirit which was poured out upon them was that which was spoken by Joel (Acts 2:16-17). Since the prophecy said, the power would be poured out upon all flesh; we must look for a second case of this baptism upon the Gentiles.

The second, and only other case, of this measure of the Holy Spirit came upon the household of Cornelius, as recorded in Acts 10. “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the work. And they (Jews) of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God” (Acts 10,44-46). The purpose for the Holy Spirit falling upon the Gentiles was to convince the Jews that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to them. The purpose could not have been to save them, for Peter said, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. . .” (Acts 10:47-48).

Peter said that which fell upon the house of Cornelius was like that which fell on them (apostles) in the beginning (Acts 11:15). There is no one going to receive the baptismal measure of the Holy Spirit today. No one has received it since Cornelius and household received it. Truly, the prophesy of Joel was fulfilled in Acts 2 and Acts 10.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 711-712
November 17, 1977

By Morris W. R. Bailey

Having pointed out in a previous article that the concept of a universal church government ultimately led to the rise of the papal office, I shall now show that it was the concept of activating the universal church in the field of evangelism that led to the formation of the missionary society of a hundred and twenty-five years ago, with the resultant division that in turn produced the Christian church.

Campbell’s Reasoning

Strange as it seems, the missionary society was, in a large measure, the “brain child” of Alexander Campbell. Students of restoration history have speculated much as to the apparent inconsistency of his arguments favoring the society, in the light of previously made statements concerning the all-sufficiency of the church. One thing seems evident, and that is that Campbell never became completely divorced from the concept of associations. Taking a charitable view of his actions, we may suggest that he was studying his way out of denominationalism, and probably did not have the clear perception of things that others have later had. Someone has said that, pygmies standing on the shoulders of giants can see farther than the giants themselves can.

Be that as it may, the principle on which Campbell sought to justify the formation of the society was that of universal church action. His reasoning was that no one congregation had the resources nor the ability to evangelize the world. Such a program, he reasoned, must be the result of the joint effort of all congregations. Typical of his thinking in this regard he wrote.

“Now if Christ’s kingdom consists of ten thousand families, or churches-particular distinct, and independent communities–how are they to act in concert, maintain unity or interests, or cooperate in any system of conservation or enlargement, unless by consultation and systematic cooperation? I affirm it to be, in my humble opinion, and from years of observation and experience impossible” (from Millennial Harbinger, Feb., 1842).

From the above quotation, and others, it is evident that Alexander Campbell based his reasoning on two mistaken premises.

1. Speaking (correctly) of the church universal as the kingdom, he assumed (incorrectly) that it was composed of all the local congregations in the aggregate.

2. Assuming that God had given no pattern for church cooperation, he thus concluded that men were free to form their own pattern whereby congregations could cooperate with one another in preaching the gospel. Out of this reasoning the American Christian Missionary Society was organized in 1849.

Had Campbell’s premises been correct there would be no doubt as to the validity of his conclusion. But he was wrong in thinking of the church universal (or kingdom) as being composed of all local congregations in the aggregate. As a kingdom its membership is made up of individual citizens (Eph. 2:19; Phil. 3:20). As the body of Christ it is composed of individual members (Romans 12:4,5; 1 Cor. 12:12,27). As the house (family) of God its membership is those who are “sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:26).

Campbell was likewise wrong in his assumption that God had left men free to provide whatever organization for the cooperation of local churches seemed most expedient. A fact overlooked by him and all other proponents of such universal church action is that God provided organization for the local congregation. He not only ordained that there be elders in every church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), but he also ordained that they were to be chosen with care, and laid down specific qualifications that must be met by those aspiring to be elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9). While these qualifications have been the occasion for much discussion, and while they set a high standard, they are not such as to place the office of an elder out of reach. This is obvious from the fact that Paul and Barnabas, on the return part of the first missionary journey, appointed elders in churches that were comparatively young.

This raises a question that was overlooked by Campbell and all others whose reasoning has led them to conclude that God left man free to devise and form a universal or general organization to coordinate the work of thousands of local congregations. The question: Does it not seem strange that God, who gave specific organization to the local congregation (Phil. 1:1), and required specific qualifications of its officers, left it to the wisdom of man to determine the type of universal organization necessary to coordinate the efforts (whether evangelistic or benevolent) of thousands of local congregations, and to determine the qualifications of its officers? Strange indeed!

God’s Wisdom — Through the Church

To the Ephesians Paul wrote that, ‘To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God; according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:10, 11).

Paul thus taught that the church is the culmination of God’s eternal purpose, and manifests his divine wisdom. That wisdom is especially seen as it relates to its autonomous feature, with elders in every congregation, whose oversight is limited to that congregation. Some things to be considered are:

1. In every congregation actively engaged in the Lord’s work there will be day to day decisions regarding its various activities that must be made by its overseers (elders). Who is better qualified to make those decisions than men of similar cultural backgrounds and living under similar conditions to the backgrounds and conditions of those being overseen? How could a man, or group of men, living in Rome, or Constantinople, or London effectively and efficiently oversee a congregation. located in the United States, or Canada? How could such do the work that God has committed to elders? How could they feed the local congregation, as is required of its elders (Acts 20:28)? How could they “exhort in sound doctrine and convict the gainsayer” (Titus 3:9), from a distance of possibly thousands of miles? How could they administer discipline, as is sometimes required of the local congregation (1 Cor. 5:4, 5)? And how could they effectively and efficiently oversee the distribution of any necessary benevolence as was done by elders in New Testament times (Acts 11:29,30)? All these, and any other activities of a congregation can be most effectively overseen and administered by men of that congregation, familiar with local conditions.

2. Another fact, often overlooked, in connection with autonomous government of the local congregation, is that of the possible (we may say, even probable) effect of any apostasy that might occur. The corruption of a universal form of church government would, in all probability result in the apostasy of the church, universal. Of this, the Roman Catholic church is a prime example. There, the pope, being the supreme head dictates the policies of that body. Every Roman Catholic, and every Catholic congregation throughout the world is obligated to accept and abide by his decrees.

While autonomous government of the local congregation does not insure against apostasy in that congregation, it does serve to localize its pernicious influence, and renders it less likely that other congregations will be corrupted. Paul foretold the coming apostasy of some of the elders of the church at Ephesus. He said, “I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29,30). Their corrupting influence would be confined, for the most part, to the church at Ephesus.

In the second and third chapters of Revelation John was writing to seven churches of Asia (Rev. 1:4). Some of those churches, especially Sardis and Laodicea, had become corrupted (Rev. 3:2,16). But their condition, displeasing as it was to the Lord, had not effected the churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia against whom Jesus brought no criticism.

Thus we have shown that just as the concept of universal church government eventually culminated in the papal system, so the concept of universal church action in evangelism was responsible for another apostasy that sabotaged the restoration movement early in its history and led to the formation of what is known as the. Christian church, some branches of which have openly identified themselves with the denominational world.

In an article to follow I propose to point out that the concept of universal church action is responsible, in a large degree for many current promotions among brethren.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 710-711
November 17, 1977

By Keith Sharp

In Matthew 5:17-20 the Lord revealed His true relationship to law. In verse 17, He began by unveiling His purpose toward the law of Moses. He announced:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

What did Jesus come to do to the law and the prophets?

The Greek word (“nomos”) translated “law” “. . . became the established name for law as decreed by a state and set up as the standard for the administration of justice” (W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. II, p. 313). It was the standard word in Jesus’ day to describe the Old Testament (cf. Gal. 3:10-18) and, more particularly, the five books of the Old Testament written by Moses, the Pentateuch (cf. Jn. 7:19; 8:5), which included the Ten Commandments (Rom. 7:7). The “prophets” refers, by a figure of speech known as metonymy, to “the writings of the prophets” (Vine, Vol. III, p. 222) and is used to refer to all the Old Testament other than the Pentateuch. Thus, the term “the law and the prophets” describes the entire Old Testament (cf. Matt. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Acts 24:14). Therefore, in Matthew 5:17 Christ was discussing His relationship to the Old Testament.

Jesus corrected misgivings concerning His purpose toward the Old Testament by revealing, “I am not come to destroy . . . .” This could not mean He .did not intend to abolish or abrogate the Old Testament, as a law, for the Lord’s personally selected ambassador to the Gentiles, the inspired apostle Paul, declared that the Lord did indeed abolish the Old Testament by His death on the cross (Rom. 7:1-6; 2 Cor. 3:6-16; Gal. 3:10-25; 4:21-5:4; Eph. 2:11-16; Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 7:11-19; 8:613; 10:1-9). The term “destroy” means to ” . demolish . . . render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught . . .” (J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 334). Had Jesus destroyed the law and the prophets, He would have nullified their purpose, prevented the fulfillment of their types and prophecies and rendered the Old Covenant useless.

The law and the prophets were much more than a system of government. They, being inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21), were an important part of the unfolding of God’s plan of salvation and are still useful for us today (Rom. 15:4). In the Old Testament we find evidence for our faith (Jn. 5:39), bases for our hope as we contemplate the faithfulness of God in fulfilling His promises (Rom. 15:4), types which foreshadow Christ and His kingdom (Heb. 8:4-5) and examples of God’s dealings with man and the principles of righteousness He requires in us (Heb. 12:1-2).

“Destroy” is not used in contrast with “perpetuate” but with “fulfill.” Christ did not say, “I came not to destroy, but to perpetuate.” He explained, “I came not to destroy, but to fulfill.” He made no promise to continue the Old Testament as a law. In fact, He did abolish the Old Testament. It is not our law.

How, then, did Christ fulfill the law and the prophets? Jesus filled up the Old Testament in His personal life by keeping it perfectly (Gal. 4:4; Matt. 3:13-15; Jn. 8:46; Heb. 4:15), thus setting an example for us (1 Pet. 2:21-22) and qualifying Himself as the sacrifice of atonement for our sins (Heb. 9:13-14; 10:1-18). The lowly Galilean made full the law by fulfilling its types (Lk. 24:44-47; Heb. 8:4-5) and completed the prophets by fulfilling their fore-tellings of the Messiah and His kingdom (Jn. 5:39; Acts 3:18-24; 13:29; 2 Pet. 1:19). He filled up the law by offering the righteousness it could not (Rom. 8:34; 10:4-10).. Jesus, in fact, fulfilled the very purpose of the law and the prophets (Gal. 3:19-25).

Since Christ has fulfilled the purpose of the Old Testament, which was “to bring us unto Christ,” “we are no longer under” that law (Gal. 3:24-25). Thus, to any today who would attempt to justify themselves by any part of the law of Moses, Paul ominously warns, “Christ is become of no effect unto you …. ye are fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4).

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 709-710
November 17, 1977

By Mike Willis

“Gymnastics For Christ”

Several years ago when I first started preaching, I heard brethren criticizing the denominations for some of the shenanigans they used to draw crowns which were clearly unauthorized in God’s word. Some of the things which denominations have used in areas where I have preached are as follows: (1) Karate For Christ. A man who held the black belt in Karate came to a certain church to break a few brick bats and to slip in a little gospel while he was there. (2) Talking Birds. Another evangelist had a different presentation in that he had certain birds which he had trained to quote scripture. Of course, the birds received greater advertising than did the scriptures. (3) Chalk Artists. Several denominations have used men who were expert in the use of chalk to draw people out to see them, I mean to hear the gospel. (4) Fooey Louie, The Gospel Magician. One of the most ridiculous displays I have seen, however, occurred in Avon, Indiana where a local Baptist church had Fooey Louie, The Gospel Magician entertain, I mean teach, the children. During the course of his ad, he produced a dove (or pigeon) which subsequently started flying all over the auditorium. The whole group became concerned about catching it. Having witnessed that scene, I can guarantee you that there was not much gospel taught there.

But, my brethren, in recent years, some who call themselves “Churches of Christ” have gotten in the act. Hence, we do not hear many sermons from them in which they criticize the denominations for these ridiculous acts to draw a crowd. In the January 1, 1970 issue of The Examiner (bulletin of the church which meets at 1201 Meeks Street in Corinth, Mississippi), W. Eural Bingham published a picture and article regarding some of our liberal brethren’s escapades at that time. Under a picture published in an Oxford, Mississippi newspaper which showed Jack Exum holding a shotgun was this caption:

“Evangelist Jack Exum holds two of the 35 weapons that will be on display at the Sunday evening service at 7:30 p.m. at the Church of Christ on North Lamar. Mr. Exum has been conducting services at the church each night this week. Calvin Conn is pastor of the local Church of Christ.”

Now you know why you are not hearing Jack Exum preach lessons about the ridiculous things the denominationals are doing to draw a crowd. He is one of them!

Last week, another bulletin crossed my desk. It was the Medina Children’s Home News (June, 1977). Under the heading “An Unusual . . . But Interesting Lesson,” the News featured a picture of a man dressed in the outfit which gymnasts wear while performing a routine who was going through a gymnastics routine. Underneath the picture was this caption:

“Ben Zickefoose, Assistant Professor in Physical Education at Abilene Christian University brought a very interesting lesson, ‘Gymnastics For Christ’, to the staff and children at Medina Home. We are grateful to Ben for sharing with us his time and talents in such a manner.”

Frankly, I would just as soon send orphans to a Baptist group if this is typical of the “religious upbringing” these kids are receiving at the hand of “Christians.” Regardless of whether or not it is right to support benevolent institutions from church treasuries (which I am convinced is altogether without Bible authority), those who are running the show at Medina Children’s Home are teaching those children who are being raised there a gospel of gimmicks and not the gospel of Christ.

New Herald Of Truth TV Programs

The next quarter of TV programs to be shown by Herald of Truth has been announced. I think that the titles of these programs reveal the direction in which the program is headed. Here are the titles for the next quarter of year of programming:

“I’m Lonely”

“The High Cost of Fear”

“I’m Unhappy”

“I’m Facing Divorce”

“I’m Getting Old”

“I Feel Guilty”

“I’m Drinking Too Much”

“I’m Frustrated”

“I’ve Lost Everything”

“I’m Dying”

“I Have a Rebellious Child”

“My Health Is Gone”

I think that you can see the emphasis of this series of programs; it has turned away from teaching men the nature of the Lord’s church in contrast to denominationalism and from teaching God’s plan of salvation in contrast to what the denominations are telling men that they must do to be saved. Instead, it is concentrating its time to meeting the social needs of man.

For a number of years, the representatives of Herald of Truth have bragged about the fact that certain denominations are using their films and that the television networks are giving them free air time. Why shouldn’t the denominations use their material? Herald of Truth is not teaching any distinctive doctrines! They are not teaching the oneness of the church and the exclusive plan of salvation revealed by Jesus Christ. Instead, they are teaching the same things that denominations have been teaching for years.

During the years from 1966 to 1971 (the latest figures which I have available to me at the present), the networks paid for 61.5- of the air time which was used by Herald of Truth. Does it ever occur to you to ask why the networks are willing to donate $4,180,488 in free air time to the Herald of Truth? Is it because the men who are managing the networks are such devoted Christians? Is it because they are in sympathy with what the Herald of Truth is trying to teach as to the oneness of the church and the divine plan of salvation? Certainly not! The reason that the networks are willing to donate so much free air time to Herald of Truth is because it is the best entertainment they can air on Sunday morning. They are interested in but one thing-having the largest viewing audience. They apparently feel that Herald of Truth is the most likely to be watched of the programs to be aired. You brethren who are on the radio and television in the various areas across the country, are radio stations giving you free air time? Why would they give free air time to Herald of Truth and not to you? I suggest that one reason is that you are not coddling the denominations as Herald of Truth is doing.

Bus Ministry

I continue to be amazed at some of the things which I have heard used as gimmicks to persuade children to ride the “Joy Bus.” I have heard of brethren hiding $5.00 under one of the seats of the bus so that the lucky kid who happened to be sitting in it would become $5.00 richer. I have heard of them promising the kids Kool-aid and candy, a stop at Burger Chef or McDonald’s, a free ice cream cone, etc.

I know of one man who decided that it was time for him to leave the liberals when he was asked to write a check for $98.00 to pay for one month’s supply of candy which was being given to bribe the children to ride one church’s “Joy Bus.” As the treasurer of the congregation, he refused to write the check and decided to identify with a sound congregation in this area.

But, of all the stunts which I have heard used to increase the number of people who ride the “Joy Bus,” this one has got to take the cake, I mean the pie. It seems that the church in Centerville, Ohio was trying to increase the number of persons who were riding their “Joy Bus” so they offered to let the team captain of the bus who brought the most to the services hit one of the elders in the face with a cream pie during one of the services of the church. And so they did at one of the Wednesday night services!

Can you imagine that, my brethren? One of the men who is supposed to be respected for his spiritual leadership and his concern for the Lord’s church, allowing this to go on in the meeting house of the Lord’s people? He who should be one of the respected leaders being made the laughingstock of the church and the world! Woe be to the shepherds of Israel who lead the Lord’s people to such travesty. Instead of being hit with a cream pie at that end of his body, the elder who would allow this needs to be kicked at the other end of his body.

But, my brethren, if you want to be with the religious “in” crowd, you are supposed to close you eyes to such like and preach about the wonderful grace of God and the sweet unity which exists among God’s people. (Frankly, if these be God’s people, I have trouble distinguishing them from the Devil’s children; they look too much alike.) However, we are to keep saying “peace, peace” regardless of what we see going on among us, if our unity-in-diversity brethren are correct. After all, no one was ever cast out of the kingdom of God because of imbecility-not even imbecility of intellect. So, keep your mouth shut and go on preaching peace and love.

Frankly, I am not going to shut my mouth. I am going to oppose sin whenever and wherever I see it, even if in so doing I must oppose those who once stood for the truth. Truth is truth and sin is sin regardless of who practices it and preaches it. The fact that those who are guilty of sin have been properly baptized does not alter the fact that what they are doing is destroying the Lord’s church. He who destroys God’s church must be opposed.

Truth Magazine XXI: 45, pp. 707-709
November 17, 1977